What does it mean to understand?

[YTNUKLR]

What does it mean "to understand"?

[stomachmonkey]

Depends on the usage.

When I say it to my kids it means, "I acknowledge that you are upset and want it your way but tough chit, ain't happenin so deal with it"

[Moses]

Originally Posted by YTNUKLR

What does it mean "to understand"?

It's a lie we tell women.

[sc_rufctr]

It should mean that you "know" what the person is thinking or feeling.

But in the real world that's rare.

[sammyg2]

Main Entry: un·der·stand
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): un·der·stood \-ˈstu̇d\; un·der·stand·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English understandan, from under + standan to stand
Date: before 12th century
transitive verb
1 a : to grasp the meaning of (understand Russian)
b : to grasp the reasonableness of (his behavior is hard to understand)
c : to have thorough or technical acquaintance with or expertness in the practice of (understand finance)
d : to be thoroughly familiar with the character and propensities of (understands children)
2 : to accept as a fact or truth or regard as plausible without utter certainty (we understand that he is returning from abroad)
3 : to interpret in one of a number of possible ways
4 : to supply in thought as though expressed (“to be married” is commonly understood after the word engaged)
intransitive verb
1 : to have understanding : have the power of comprehension
2 : to achieve a grasp of the nature, significance, or explanation of something
3 : to believe or infer something to be the case
4 : to show a sympathetic or tolerant attitude toward something

[Lazarro]

[legion]

I could explain, but you probably wouldn't get it...

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by YTNUKLR

What does it mean "to understand"?

I know that it relates to ladders. I don't understand a ladder; it's bad luck to do so - even if you're not surreptitious.

When they painted my house I made it a point to never understand a ladder on ingress - or on egress, for that matter.

Several times, on returning home, my doors were under ladders so, until the painters left, I was outstanding on my front lawn.

Hope this helps.

[Dave L]

Yes I totally understand Darisc

[YTNUKLR]

stomachmonkey, Moses, sc_rufctr-

So, "to understand" is to simulate another's experience--and know the feelings and thoughts that you would have accompanying that experience?

Lazarro - I love the picture

sammy- I think you're not understanding the question (ha,ha). My question goes beyond the ontology of language to a more fundamental notion of the concept [what the hell is a "more fundamental notion of a concept"?].

How about this thought experiment: you have two people that, when given a math test, both get everything on the test correct.

Person A starts with basic assumptions (axioms), derives new theorems and then uses the theorems to get the right answers.

Person B memorizes all the formulas from a book, or memorizes proofs, then comes into the test and writes down the answers for the questions on the test.

Can you prove that one person "understands" it? They both get the same score. Person A "understands" the material better because Person A can reason through all of it from basic assumptions? Person B "understands" the material better because Person B can retain all the information necessary for success in his/her memory?

Are there degrees of understanding?

If "understanding" is on a continuum, is there a deeper level of understanding than a "fundamental concept"?

I feel like I'm at the limits of language with a question like this.

My question essentially relates to Searle's "Chinese Room" argument: if you have a person in a room who does not "understand" Chinese symbology, and rules for how to manipulate symbols in order to derive meanings in another language this person can "understand," in a way that could be interpreted by an outside observer to represent the person inside the room "understanding" Chinese, does the person inside the room understand Chinese, or not?

We can program a computer to do exactly what Person A does on a math test, given enough time and memory, and we can program a computer to do what Person B does on a math test. We can program a computer to take in one type of symbology, and according to rules, translate these sets of symbols into other sets of symbols (other languages), and we call this a translator program. Our translation programs are still not as good at language translation than native speakers are, but they are close. John Searle (and some others) would contend that the computers, no matter how they are programmed, can never "understand" math, theorems or Chinese in any real sense.

Can they?

[M.D. Holloway]

when you get it, you get it, when you don't, you don't

[DARISC]

I had difficulty following your presentation of the problem, so I dredged this up:

From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

"The Chinese Room argument, devised by John Searle, is an argument against the possibility of true artificial intelligence. The argument centers on a thought experiment in which someone who knows only English sits alone in a room following English instructions for manipulating strings of Chinese characters, such that to those outside the room it appears as if someone in the room understands Chinese. The argument is intended to show that while suitably programmed computers may appear to converse in natural language, they are not capable of understanding language, even in principle. Searle argues that the thought experiment underscores the fact that computers merely use syntactic rules to manipulate symbol strings, but have no understanding of meaning or semantics. Searle's argument is a direct challenge to proponents of Artificial Intelligence, and the argument also has broad implications for functionalist and computational theories of meaning and of mind. As a result, there have been many critical replies to the argument."

Searle's argument seems logical. I'd like to read the critical replies (I'm sure some of them are pretty heated, given all the grant money at risk ).

While I don't toil in the fields of philosophy or AI, it seems to me that AI is actually no more than highly sophisticated algorhythms that attempt to mimic human thought processes.

I don't know if attempts have been made to write code that approximates the unconscious - that would seem to me to require supercomputers which would totally eclipse those that we have today.

I find it difficult to comprehend the speed at which the human mind works at the unconscious level, evaluating, comparing, "what if"ing and looking outside the envelope in search of new and unique couplings/pairings/combinations which, in the human mind, can happen, as manifested in "strokes of genius" which are then developed in the conscious mind before being presented.

Even if such a speedy supercomputer could be created, it seems to me that the larger challenge would be for programmers to develop welltanschauung and gestalt plug-ins.

The problems of developing artificial intelligence are very interesting, but, given the state of today's world, I think a more pressing need is to somehow find a way of eradicating genuine stupidity.

[onlycafe]

cat in a box.

[RWebb]

"AI is actually no more than highly sophisticated algorhythms"

no - that was just phase I; many other approaches have been tried since

[pwd72s]

This discussion should continue in a collegiate town's undergrad bar...

[Erakad]

cat in a box.

How about a cat with a carrot on his head:





or maybe I just "don't" understand....

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by RWebb

"AI is actually no more than highly sophisticated algorhythms"

no - that was just phase I; many other approaches have been tried since

That don't involve algoryhthms, or that don't attempt to mimic human thought processes?

[Por_sha911]

Huh? What?

[livi]

Its a way of displaying imaginary empathy.

[YTNUKLR]

AI uses algorithms. Kind of hard to avoid. AI is a set of processes with different approaches; symbolic or logical, neural network and now probabilistic. The main issues are not in getting computers to do what humans can do in various arenas; they are getting computers to do it as quickly as humans, and to be able to "select" the best type of reasoning for a given situation.

Understanding (something, supposedly) is what you all are doing right now. You take it for granted. "You" are a sentient being. You are animate, unlike rocks and dirt. You, made of bags of skin and piles of chemical molecules, are sitting there reading your computer screen, understanding something or at least thinking you're understanding something, simulating other people's experiences...

and you seem to think this is a trivial fact of the universe?

Yeah, this is not an interesting topic at all, let's talk about Lady GaGa